3 ms·
I'd love to hear your reasoning for why there is a strong chance this will be struck down. The court didn't rule against the Apple Tax, just on the monopoly fo
by qarl 3y ago
I'd love to hear your reasoning for why there is a strong chance this will be struck down.
The court didn't rule against the Apple Tax, just on the monopoly for payment provider. I understand that many people misunderstand this point, but that does not change it.
- bluefirebrand 3y agoThe Apple Tax is very clearly tied to the app store though. By trying to make it apply to apps purchased on other stores, they are essentially saying they have a right to add a commission fee to any transaction involving Apps that happens on an Apple Device, which seems like an overreach to me.
- qarl 3y agoI think you misunderstand - there are no other app stores. Only different payment processors.
- bluefirebrand 3y agoMaybe I misunderstood the whole point of this. This whole lawsuit is because Epic wanted to avoid the Apple Tax by processing in-game purchases via their own payment provider, bypassing Apple App Store or Apple Pay or whatever other thing Apple forces everyone to use on iOS. So Epic is now allowed to use their own payment processer for in-game purchases, but Apple is saying that they will still have to pay the Apple Tax for those purchases. In this case the "store" is not an app store but an in-game store, sure. Have I got that right so far?
- qarl 3y ago> This whole lawsuit is because Epic wanted to avoid the Apple Tax That may be, but that's not what the court ruled. The court ruled in favor of Epic on only one count of ten - specifically that Apple must allow other payment processors. As long as the app was originally installed via the Apple App Store, it's still subject to the Apple Tax.